UK UK - Jill Dando, 37, Fulham, London, 26 Apr 1999

[CSIAngus]

Her clothes appear to be visible in some of the crime scene photos, seemingly cut off by the paramedics. I assume the police removed Jill's clothes from the scene, and that they *did* examine them. Why would they not.

But bear in mind this was almost 25 years ago; DNA and other such evidence was much more difficult to extract. A trace of the killer's DNA would be difficult to find *today* when overwhelmed by so much of Jill's blood and other remnants of the attempts to save her life. In 1999 much larger samples were needed than today, and the samples had to be largely uncontaminated--which the items from the scene sadly were not.

Incidentally, a fibre consistent with a pair of trousers owned by BG *was* found on Jill's raincoat (Link). It's far from conclusive proof of his guilt, but it is another piece of circumstantial evidence.

How many other pairs of those same trousers were being worn in London at that time or other garments using the same fibres? Even the circumstantial evidence was tenuous, which is why the conviction was quashed.

 

[WiseOwl]

Her clothes appear to be visible in some of the crime scene photos, seemingly cut off by the paramedics. I assume the police removed Jill's clothes from the scene, and that they *did* examine them. Why would they not.

But bear in mind this was almost 25 years ago; DNA and other such evidence was much more difficult to extract. A trace of the killer's DNA would be difficult to find *today* when overwhelmed by so much of Jill's blood and other remnants of the attempts to save her life. In 1999 much larger samples were needed than today, and the samples had to be largely uncontaminated--which the items from the scene sadly were not.

Incidentally, a fibre consistent with a pair of trousers owned by BG *was* found on Jill's raincoat (Link). It's far from conclusive proof of his guilt, but it is another piece of circumstantial evidence.

Thanks for supplying the link.

So they did indeed check the coat Jill was wearing and they found a fibre consistent with a pair of trousers owned by BG.

Is that all they found - not really convincing evidence is it?

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

How many other pairs of those same trousers were being worn in London at that time or other garments using the same fibres? Even the circumstantial evidence was tenuous, which is why the conviction was quashed.

Experts admitted as much regarding the trouser fibre. I assume clothing owned by other people known to Jill would have been compared and ruled out, along with clothing worn by those known to have been on the scene such as the neighbours, paramedics, investigators etc. It was one more circumstantial piece of evidence against BG; Nick Ross lays it all out in his article (Link) much more thoroughly than I can. Circumstantial, but to me very compelling. As I said before, the bar for conviction is high. I believe BG is most likely guilty, but as a juror, I don't think I could convict based on this evidence either. What you believe or even what you know, and what you can prove, are often two different things.

I've known about the evidence in the case for about 20 years, but what has really made me believe he's guilty is watching and listening to *BG*. He's a manipulative, predatory liar IMO, and I'd feel that way about him even if he didn't kill Jill Dando.

To this day, BG is still lying about the photo of him wearing a gas mask and holding a gun consistent with the one believed to have been used in the shooting. Where did that gun go, and why does BG have no explanation for it other than a blanket denial of the obvious? At the time of his arrest he not only denied killing Jill, he denied knowing who she was completely; ridiculous given how ubiquitous she was at the time, and also given the celebrity magazines found in his home. His lies are so flagrant and unnecessary that they make him look more guilty. His desperate efforts to get local people to give him an alibi are likewise incriminating.

Thanks for supplying the link.

So they did indeed check the coat Jill was wearing and they found a fibre consistent with a pair of trousers owned by BG.

Is that all they found - not really convincing evidence is it?

How much would you expect to find if a total stranger walked up behind you, quickly pushed you down with one hand, pushed the barrel of a gun against your head with the other hand, and immediately walked away again?

I'd expect there to be more evidence of Jill on the killer than evidence of the killer on Jill. Even if BG is the killer, his clothing wasn't examined for over a year.

Even in a best-case scenario I'm not sure there would have been much to find, and this was far from a best-case scenario.

 

[WiseOwl]

Experts admitted as much regarding the trouser fibre. I assume clothing owned by other people known to Jill would have been compared and ruled out, along with clothing worn by those known to have been on the scene such as the neighbours, paramedics, investigators etc. It was one more circumstantial piece of evidence against BG; Nick Ross lays it all out in his article (Link) much more thoroughly than I can. Circumstantial, but to me very compelling. As I said before, the bar for conviction is high. I believe BG is most likely guilty, but as a juror, I don't think I could convict based on this evidence either. What you believe or even what you know, and what you can prove, are often two different things.

I've known about the evidence in the case for about 20 years, but what has really made me believe he's guilty is watching and listening to *BG*. He's a manipulative, predatory liar IMO, and I'd feel that way about him even if he didn't kill Jill Dando.

To this day, BG is still lying about the photo of him wearing a gas mask and holding a gun consistent with the one believed to have been used in the shooting. Where did that gun go, and why does BG have no explanation for it other than a blanket denial of the obvious? At the time of his arrest he not only denied killing Jill, he denied knowing who she was completely; ridiculous given how ubiquitous she was at the time, and also given the celebrity magazines found in his home. His lies are so flagrant and unnecessary that they make him look more guilty. His desperate efforts to get local people to give him an alibi are likewise incriminating.


How much would you expect to find if a total stranger walked up behind you, quickly pushed you down with one hand, pushed the barrel of a gun against your head with the other hand, and immediately walked away again?

I'd expect there to be more evidence of Jill on the killer than evidence of the killer on Jill. Even if BG is the killer, his clothing wasn't examined for over a year.

Even in a best-case scenario I'm not sure there would have been much to find, and this was far from a best-case scenario.

I wouldn't expect to find anything, and i find it astonishing that the only thing they found was, amazingly, a fibre that was consistent with a pair of trousers owned by BG.

How incredibly lucky that somehow that fibre managed to survive the contamination that was at the scene.

 

[CSIAngus]

Experts admitted as much regarding the trouser fibre. I assume clothing owned by other people known to Jill would have been compared and ruled out, along with clothing worn by those known to have been on the scene such as the neighbours, paramedics, investigators etc. It was one more circumstantial piece of evidence against BG; Nick Ross lays it all out in his article (Link) much more thoroughly than I can. Circumstantial, but to me very compelling. As I said before, the bar for conviction is high. I believe BG is most likely guilty, but as a juror, I don't think I could convict based on this evidence either. What you believe or even what you know, and what you can prove, are often two different things.

I've known about the evidence in the case for about 20 years, but what has really made me believe he's guilty is watching and listening to *BG*. He's a manipulative, predatory liar IMO, and I'd feel that way about him even if he didn't kill Jill Dando.

To this day, BG is still lying about the photo of him wearing a gas mask and holding a gun consistent with the one believed to have been used in the shooting. Where did that gun go, and why does BG have no explanation for it other than a blanket denial of the obvious? At the time of his arrest he not only denied killing Jill, he denied knowing who she was completely; ridiculous given how ubiquitous she was at the time, and also given the celebrity magazines found in his home. His lies are so flagrant and unnecessary that they make him look more guilty. His desperate efforts to get local people to give him an alibi are likewise incriminating.


How much would you expect to find if a total stranger walked up behind you, quickly pushed you down with one hand, pushed the barrel of a gun against your head with the other hand, and immediately walked away again?

I'd expect there to be more evidence of Jill on the killer than evidence of the killer on Jill. Even if BG is the killer, his clothing wasn't examined for over a year.

Even in a best-case scenario I'm not sure there would have been much to find, and this was far from a best-case scenario.

I can't find any reference that all possible sources of that single fibre were searched for as extensively as you assume.

People looked at Timothy Evans and thought he must be guilty. He was effectively illiterate and frequently invented stories about himself to boost his self-esteem. He changed his statement several times and even made a false confession. He was hanged for the murder of his daughter though completely innocent. I wouldn't want BG living next to me with his criminal and behavioural history but I'm not convinced that he is a murderer even if he might look like one to some people.

 

[dotr]

2001 repost
Rebecca Allison

Fibre linked to Dando accused

Fibres on a pair of trousers belonging to Jill Dando's alleged killer match a single fibre found on the coat the television presenter was wearing when she died, the Old Bailey heard yesterday.

www.theguardian.com

''Fibres on a pair of trousers belonging to Jill Dando's alleged killer match a single fibre found on the coat the television presenter was wearing when she died, the Old Bailey heard yesterday.

The blue-grey polyester fibre was found on Miss Dando's beige raincoat after she was shot through the head on the doorstep of her home in Gowan Avenue, Fulham, south-west London, forensics expert Geoffrey Roe said.


But he added that the fibre was common, giving only weak support to the theory that it came from trousers taken from the home of Barry George. George, 41, denies murdering Miss Dando on April 26 1999.

The fibre matched those from George's trousers in an examination by microscope and in a computer colour check, but it was too short to enable him to extract the dye and split it into its component colours for precise comparison, Dr Roe said.''

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

I wouldn't expect to find anything, and i find it astonishing that the only thing they found was, amazingly, a fibre that was consistent with a pair of trousers owned by BG.

How incredibly lucky that somehow that fibre managed to survive the contamination that was at the scene.

IMO, fibres are one of the (few) things that would survive the contamination. Footprints or fingerprints can be smeared and DNA can be contaminated to the point where it's basically useless, but a grey polyester fibre won't suddenly turn into yellow cotton. It might move from one place to another but materially it shouldn't change. In any event, it certainly wasn't proof of BG's guilt, it's just one tiny part of the larger circumstantial case.

I can't find any reference that all possible sources of that single fibre were searched for as extensively as you assume.

People looked at Timothy Evans and thought he must be guilty. He was effectively illiterate and frequently invented stories about himself to boost his self-esteem. He changed his statement several times and even made a false confession. He was hanged for the murder of his daughter though completely innocent. I wouldn't want BG living next to me with his criminal and behavioural history but I'm not convinced that he is a murderer even if he might look like one to some people.

Like I said, that is only my assumption. I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to think they searched for other potential sources of the fibre; they had a year to examine the evidence and follow thousands of other leads before they ever looked at BG or his trousers.

I don't see how BG is in any way comparable to Timothy Evans. The person who played arguably the biggest role in getting TE convicted and executed was in fact the real killer of his wife and daughter. It was a clear miscarriage of justice.

All that can really be said about BG is that the circumstantial evidence against him still exists, and the lack of proof of his guilt is the same as it always was. Sadly, the same is true of any potential suspect in the Jill Dando case. There isn't enough evidence to prove who did it, and yet *someone* obviously did.

 

[CSIAngus]

IMO, fibres are one of the (few) things that would survive the contamination. Footprints or fingerprints can be smeared and DNA can be contaminated to the point where it's basically useless, but a grey polyester fibre won't suddenly turn into yellow cotton. It might move from one place to another but materially it shouldn't change. In any event, it certainly wasn't proof of BG's guilt, it's just one tiny part of the larger circumstantial case.


Like I said, that is only my assumption. I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to think they searched for other potential sources of the fibre; they had a year to examine the evidence and follow thousands of other leads before they ever looked at BG or his trousers.

I don't see how BG is in any way comparable to Timothy Evans. The person who played arguably the biggest role in getting TE convicted and executed was in fact the real killer of his wife and daughter. It was a clear miscarriage of justice.

All that can really be said about BG is that the circumstantial evidence against him still exists, and the lack of proof of his guilt is the same as it always was. Sadly, the same is true of any potential suspect in the Jill Dando case. There isn't enough evidence to prove who did it, and yet *someone* obviously did.

I never said the two cases were comparable. I think you have missed the point that I was making, which wasn't related to that case at all. It was about the perception of Timothy Evans, based on his obvious intellectual and psychological shortcomings. It's easy to see BG as a murderer because of him, how he looks and what he says, even for me and I don't think he is.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

I never said the two cases were comparable. I think you have missed the point that I was making, which wasn't related to that case at all. It was about the perception of Timothy Evans, based on his obvious intellectual and psychological shortcomings. It's easy to see BG as a murderer because of him, how he looks and what he says, even for me and I don't think he is.

I did understand that you were talking about how crimes are often pinned on the "easy" target. But TE's case largely revolved around crimes often being committed by someone close to the victim (in TE's case his wife and daughter) and also on the real killer framing him and testifying against him. TE may have fit the "easy" suspect profile, but there was much more working against him than just the fact that he was a fantasist and not very intelligent.

It sounds like you think BG was focused on by the investigators because he was the local weirdo and therefore an "easy" target. But that ignores him having a long history of stalking and attacking women; that he was attempting to create a false alibi; that at one time he possessed and was photographed holding a gun matching the description of the murder weapon (which subsequently disappeared and which he denied ever having); that he was seen on Gowan Avenue that morning; that he owned a coat similar to one described by some witnesses, and which was later found to possibly have a particle of gun residue in the pocket etc. etc.

I fully accept that this is all circumstantial and not proof of anything. But there's a lot of circumstantial evidence all pointing at one man. The lead investigator said in the Netflix documentary that they originally had thousands of suspects and investigated all of them. Jill's fiance, her ex-partners, her agent, criminals who had been featured on Crimewatch, known hitmen etc. BG wasn't targeted because he was weird and the police needed to make an arrest; out of thousands of suspects, he was the only one who fit the evidence they had.

 

[WestLondoner]

It sounds like you think BG was focused on by the investigators because he was the local weirdo and therefore an "easy" target. But that ignores him having a long history of stalking and attacking women; that he was attempting to create a false alibi; that at one time he possessed and was photographed holding a gun matching the description of the murder weapon (which subsequently disappeared and which he denied ever having); that he was seen on Gowan Avenue that morning; that he owned a coat similar to one described by some witnesses, and which was later found to possibly have a particle of gun residue in the pocket etc. etc.

Yes. Distressingly often, the police have indeed framed the local weirdo, but quite often - Colin Stagg who didn't kill Rachel Nickell, Stefan Kiszko who didn't kill Lesley Molseed, and so on - the sole basis for suspicion was being the local weirdo. With Colin Stagg the case was so non-existent the police actually tried to fabricate some evidence. In contrast, BG's criminal history, ongoing stalking habit, fascination with weapons and repeated lying made him quite a bit more plausible a suspect than if he had only been the local weirdo.

But there's a lot of circumstantial evidence all pointing at one man. The lead investigator said in the Netflix documentary that they originally had thousands of suspects and investigated all of them...he was the only one who fit the evidence they had.

This is quite an important point IMHO. In another famous unsolved case, I don't really buy the arguments that John Cannan killed Suzy Lamplugh because this too rests on circumstantial evidence, circular reasoning, or even downright anecdote - gathered, in some cases, ten or twenty years later. It's not credible evidence of Cannan's guilt to say he was a recently-released rapist who lived nearby. Probably about 30 other rapists had been released from the same prison that year, however, so you'd have to show that it couldn't just as easily have been any of them. The thing is, in the JD case the police actually did do all that legwork and there is only BG to whom it all points.

It is sometimes argued that, as he can't have known she was headed over there, he can't have lain in wait for her all day. I'm not sure this works, because he lived a leisurely ten-minute walk away and he didn't work. We don't really know how he spent his days (except that it wasn't in tidying his flat). So nothing stops him drifting between her door and his, or hanging around and getting bored and going home and coming back again. He could have been playing at being a spy for a bit then gone home and played at being the SAS for a bit then gone out again and played being a pirate, or something. Whoever kills a TV presenter isn't all there to begin with, so I don't think we can confidently assign rational motives to him to determine what he might and might not do.

 

[Markybug]

Could BG have simply acquired the gun with the bullets? Negating any need to purchase or make them himself?

I think the fact he denied knowing who she was and also denying he was the person in the photo with the gun say a lot to me.

 

[tes1984]

Could BG have simply acquired the gun with the bullets? Negating any need to purchase or make them himself?

I think the fact he denied knowing who she was and also denying he was the person in the photo with the gun say a lot to me.

I don't know about the gun, but I think BG denied everything because he had recently been questioned by police for another murder.

 

[CSIAngus]

It seems obvious that justice Establishment think BG did commit the crime which is why he never received compensation for the time served in prison after his conviction was quashed and why they've put no resources into the investigation since his release. I'm not convinced by any of that but I do think the case would benefit from a thorough review by another force.

 

[WestLondoner]

It seems obvious that justice Establishment think BG did commit the crime which is why he never received compensation for the time served in prison after his conviction was quashed and why they've put no resources into the investigation since his release. I'm not convinced by any of that but I do think the case would benefit from a thorough review by another force.

AIUI you can claim compensation for wrongful imprisonment, but whether you get any depends on whether the original conviction is found to have been obviously faulty or perverse.

BG did not get any compo because on balance the conviction arose from a credible case. He was charged because he lied to the police, stalked women, was a convicted sex offender, led a weird fantasy life pretending to be macho other people, had an unhealthy interest in firearms and posing as a hard man, and witnesses who knew him put him at the scene.

If he'd been the blameless local vicar he'd have got paid out, but nobody looking at the case would say he clearly didn't do it and should manifestly never have been convicted.

 

[CSIAngus]

AIUI you can claim compensation for wrongful imprisonment, but whether you get any depends on whether the original conviction is found to have been obviously faulty or perverse.

BG did not get any compo because on balance the conviction arose from a credible case. He was charged because he lied to the police, stalked women, was a convicted sex offender, led a weird fantasy life pretending to be macho other people, had an unhealthy interest in firearms and posing as a hard man, and witnesses who knew him put him at the scene.

If he'd been the blameless local vicar he'd have got paid out, but nobody looking at the case would say he clearly didn't do it and should manifestly never have been convicted.

I don't disagree. A process has determined that he's not getting anything for the reasons you outline, including that they viewed the original conviction as sound. I'm not aware of any other lines of inquiry that are being followed.

 

[crazychris]

I don't disagree. A process has determined that he's not getting anything for the reasons you outline, including that they viewed the original conviction as sound. I'm not aware of any other lines of inquiry that are being followed.

I still think he killed her and am sure the Met does too. I would say that to his face now. Glad he got no compensation.

 

[iamshadow21]

Watched the Netflix series last night when I couldn't sleep. Very interesting, not a case I was familiar with. As an Australian, seeing and hearing at least two prominent newsreaders from our channels prominently featured in the archival footage took me right back! Brian Henderson (RIP) and Richard Morecroft, I think it was. Two of the primary voices of the news of my childhood and teens.

As for the case, I think unless someone talks, unless something absolutely colossal is found that breaks it wide open, it's going to stay in the limbo it's in. Too much time, too broad scope (but also, simultaneously, too narrow), and a trial that should never have happened. Whatever the role of BG, GSR (and such an infinitesimal amount of it!) is junk science that should never have been overegged as to its importance to such a degree to a jury. I can't blame the jury themselves, they rely on how the science and evidence is presented to them, but I can blame the people who chose to overrepresent what a single particle of GSR means. Which is... Nothing. You used a car with fabric upholstery today? Congrats, your hands probably will test positive for GSR, now, in a basic screening test. (Car seat fabric contains antimony.) A new method to reduce false positives due to antimony in detection of gunshot residues - PubMed

MOO

 

[CSIAngus]

I still think he killed her and am sure the Met does too. I would say that to his face now. Glad he got no compensation.

I'm sure that they do think that. IMO, this will not be solved because BG will not be tried again and, as I believe, a professional hit will never be solved either.

 

[bestill]

I watched this last night too. Really fascinating that it hasn't been solved but also understandable.

I have so many questions! One of the first is how fortunate is the killer that she went by her home that morning? Who would want her dead and for what reason? Did the fiancé have someone in his life that was jealous of this dynamic woman and their relationship?

Observations: Boldness of killing in broad daylight, why didn't the killer wait until she was inside, clearly not worried about being caught. Is this how a hired professional would kill? If there are so many CCTV's that LE could map out her route that morning surely they checked her neighborhood for someone lurking or waiting around.

I agree with the other posters and doubt that this one will ever be solved.

 

[Novosti]

Seems like one of those cases where the chances of the lead suspect (BG) doing it are above 50%, but not close enough for a sound conviction.

I think we can say now that the "contract killer" theory doesn't stack up. The weapon, crime scene, and delivering the shot at close range with physical contact, would all be absurd choices for a professional assassin. No contract killer could have known she would arrive at that location at that time, unless they had extraordinary systems of surveillance involving a big team (implausible). Following her car, then jumping out quickly to deliver the shot, would have been extremely difficult - there was nowhere to park, and an abandoned vehicle in the middle of the road would have been exceptionally conspicuous.

And the candidate motives don't make sense. Whilst it's just about plausible (although extremely rare) that organised criminals might murder an investigative journalist, murdering a TV presenter makes no sense at all. There is no evidence that the Serbian security forces or paramilitaries conducted terrorist style reprisals in western countries. There didn't appear to be any family, relationship or financial motivations for someone to put out a contract.

This murder has all the hallmarks of a chaotic, badly planned individual action that got lucky, in terms of the lack of witnesses and forensics.